Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Rights

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    Basic human dignity was not, in the eyes of the founders, tied to the right to vote. You can be human without having voting rights. Your responsibilities to the commonwealth would simply be different.
    Whatever, rights are still subjective, or as you put it, in the eyes of the founders. If rights are not subjective then explain how they are derived objectively?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
      It seems that your question was no so much about fundamental rights, which are innumerable. Rights of this type are mostly focused on what an individual person should be recognized as having. Instead your focus seems to be on either a societal level (what I should expect from my community pool or government) or a social level (what I should expect from my neighbor)
      My question is from a legal context.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        No Spartacus, my point still holds. When people form lines to access anything there is an expectation. If you are in situation where lines are not forming, then there is no expectation. I have been at concerts where we would just pee in the woods. But once lines form there is an understanding. And I will maintain that no matter which culture, if you cut that line the others will see that as unfair.
        You're still assuming a culture in which lines are common enough for the culture to have developed norms around them. If you want to demonstrate the universality of the idea of fairness, you're going to have to start somewhere else.
        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Whatever, rights are still subjective, or as you put it, in the eyes of the founders. If rights are not subjective then explain how they are derived objectively?
          Rights are derived by measuring the demands of dignity up against the means available to a particular society at a particular point in time.
          Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
            Rights are derived by measuring the demands of dignity up against the means available to a particular society at a particular point in time.
            And are the demands of dignity dependent upon objective criteria or are they derived subjectively? Do these demands of dignity from which rights are derived apply only to human beings?

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              And are the demands of dignity dependent upon objective criteria or are they derived subjectively? Do these demands of dignity from which rights are derived apply only to human beings?
              All of creation has dignity, but the human person is unique. Imago Dei and all that. We're stewards of the world, not its owners. Our intelligence puts us in a unique position to abuse our environment, but also in a unique position to respect and contribute to it.

              So there are some uniquely human rights, but human desires don't entirely override the dignity of the environment.
              Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                You're still assuming a culture in which lines are common enough for the culture to have developed norms around them. If you want to demonstrate the universality of the idea of fairness, you're going to have to start somewhere else.
                Ok, how about if we start with God. That we all are His imagine bearers, that we all have His law written on our hearts (see Rom.2:14,15). And if that is the case, and I think it is, we should see some ethical commonality across cultures - notwithstanding the distortion that sin introduces.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Carrikature, you can not dismiss my example so easily. I think you recognize, that yes, just about everyone in those lines would see the line jumping as unfair i.e. wrong. There is no reason to try and confuse the issue. And we would see it as unfair for similar reasons. If I were to follow your reasoning, you would think that there would be little agreement as to the unfairness of the act - but we both know that would not be the case.
                  There is no attempt to confuse the issue. The issue IS complex. What's ironic is that you don't even appear to believe your own claim. Rather, you accept that not every person follows the same reasoning, hence the 99% caveat you made and the "just about everyone" caveat in the post I've quoted. You already recognize the flaw and therefore the insufficiency of the example. As if that weren't enough, Spartacus modified the example slightly and amply demonstrated how quickly your declaration fails to obtain. So yes, I can dismiss the example pretty easily, primarily because it is overly simplistic and fails to represent the whole (as if any one example could, which is entirely the point).
                  I'm not here anymore.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Let me ask you - what if they were waiting for food to feed their family? Or medical care? But there can be situations where fairness is not expected. But having been to many outdoor concerts in my time, even there, jumping the line for a porta-pottie would have been frowned on.
                    That you acknowledge that there are situations where fairness is not expected does most of the work for me. You would have us use this as a baseline while simultaneously acknowledging that it doesn't always apply.
                    I'm not here anymore.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Ok, how about if we start with God. That we all are His imagine bearers, that we all have His law written on our hearts (see Rom.2:14,15). And if that is the case, and I think it is, we should see some ethical commonality across cultures - notwithstanding the distortion that sin introduces.
                      Atheism. Hinduism. Islam. Any religion that emphasizes the complete transcendence of God could challenge the idea of the imago dei. Furthermore, I think it's possible to suggest that any religion which emphasizes human imperfection-- or human perfectibility, e.g. marxism-- could challenge the idea that God's law is written on our hearts. You and I can agree on these ideas, but that doesn't mean that you can take it for granted that everyone else does.
                      Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                        There is no attempt to confuse the issue. The issue IS complex. What's ironic is that you don't even appear to believe your own claim. Rather, you accept that not every person follows the same reasoning, hence the 99% caveat you made and the "just about everyone" caveat in the post I've quoted. You already recognize the flaw and therefore the insufficiency of the example. As if that weren't enough, Spartacus modified the example slightly and amply demonstrated how quickly your declaration fails to obtain. So yes, I can dismiss the example pretty easily, primarily because it is overly simplistic and fails to represent the whole (as if any one example could, which is entirely the point).
                        I don't agree at all. Again, if you are correct there would be next to zero ethical commonality across cultures, or any possible moral understanding between peoples. But that is not the case, nor has it ever been. And what culture sees murder or theft within their own tribe as good things? Or bravery as bad and cowardice as good?
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          The way I see it, there is no such thing as an impossible heresy; no matter how absurd the idea (be it intellectual or moral), it is possible that someone might embrace it wholeheartedly. You may, if you wish, take the ideas of Ayn Rand as proof of this.
                          Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                            A You and I can agree on these ideas, but that doesn't mean that you can take it for granted that everyone else does.
                            Spartacus, it is not about what you or I agree on, it is either a fact or it isn't. Either all men have God's law written on their hearts or they don't. And if they do then we would find a degree ethical commonality across cultures - of course with the distortion of sin taken into consideration.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              I don't agree at all. Again, if you are correct there would be next to zero ethical commonality across cultures, or any possible moral understanding between peoples. But that is not the case, nor has it ever been. And what culture sees murder or theft within their own tribe as good things? Or bravery as bad and cowardice as good?
                              Your approach is too simplisitic, and this leads to a faulty conclusion. It's NOT the case that there would be zero ethical commonality. There are countless ways for people to have commonality, and such commonality can exist in some aspects while being absent in others. I've already given examples of this. Even if multiple cultures see murder and theft as bad things, they can differ quite significantly in what is considered murder or theft. History makes that quite plain. Similarly, what is considered bravery or cowardice is not identical. A really good example is the comparison between U.S. slavery and Israelite slavery. They are quite different in terms of social context and strictures. Some consider the difference significant and claim that Israelite slavery was morally acceptable while others claim that all forms are immoral. The first group could say that slavery is bad while simultaneously maintaining that what the Israelites practiced wasn't slavery.
                              I'm not here anymore.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                                The way I see it, there is no such thing as an impossible heresy; no matter how absurd the idea (be it intellectual or moral), it is possible that someone might embrace it wholeheartedly. You may, if you wish, take the ideas of Ayn Rand as proof of this.
                                I quite agree.
                                I'm not here anymore.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                513 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X